Immaculate conception of Mary?

Standing Up · Mar 26, 2015

justinangel said:
If the passage is unsymmetrical it can't be the correct translation, and it would be bad poetry.

PAX

Of course it is the right translation. Philo wasn't a believer. His poetry and Athena take precedence?!

Septuagint
Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, he shall watch against thy head, and thou shalt watch against his heel.

justinangel · Mar 26, 2015

Alfred Persson said:
Relevant to your argument is other scripture indicating Mary was not sinless:

34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:34-35 NKJ)

If Mary were sinless, then there was no need for the power of the Highest to overshadow her, so what was born would be "Holy", that is, separate from the sinfulness of man.

The angel is explaining to Mary how she will be able to conceive the child without having marital relations with Joseph. He declares that God would enter into a marriage relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in the womb. The expression "to lay one's power" (resuth) over a woman was a euphemism for having marital relations with her. Similarly, to "overshadow", by spreading the "wing" or "cloak" over a woman, was a euphemism for having marital relations. We read in Ruth 3,9: He said, Who are you? And she answered, I am Ruth, your handmaid; spread your cloak (literally "wing") over your handmaid, for you are next of kin. Tallith is a Hebrew-Aramaic word for cloak which is derived from the word "shadow", tellal. Hence, to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman, or to "overshadow" her meant to cohabit with her as husband and wife. Ruth refused to lay with her lord, Boaz, unless they were married. Jesus referred to Israel as God's bride when he said: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling" (Mt 23,37). Luke 1:34-35 has to do with Mary's chastity, not with any sinfulness. Mary would have been sinful if she had had other children with Joseph after having had a child with God according to the moral precept of Mosaic Law. The angel Gabriel has designated Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She rightfully belongs to God in a relationship redolent of a marriage (cf. Songs 4, 12). Here we have another allusion to Daughter Zion, God's virgin bride Israel, in the person of Mary.

"For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name."
Isaiah 54, 5

And when I passed by you, and saw you weltering in your blood, I said to you in your blood, Live, and grow up like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full maidenhood;your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. When I passed by you again and looked upon you, behold, you were at the age for love; and I spread my skirt over you, and covered your nakedness: yea, I plighted my troth to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord God, and you became mine."
Ezekiel 16, 7-8

As for your second argument, it begs the question why Paul never cited Mary as the exception to the rule. If she were immaculately conceived like Adam and Eve, then she was not under the penalty of death for sin:

Gen 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Wouldn't the apostle John list Mary as the exception to this rule?

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Both Paul and John are speaking in a collective sense, not a distributive sense. Apparently, Enoch and Elijah, and possibly Moses as well, didn't die but were translated to a terrestrial paradise.

Your second argument also violates parsimony, occam's razor. Because it adds the unique and hitherto unknown entity of a person born sinless before Christ, who died for everyone's sins.

Yes, Mary was born sinless, and conceived in a sinless state as well. But not unlike the rest of us, she too was subject to inheriting the stain of original sin as a descendant of Adam. And since Mary was subject to it, she was in need of redemption, only she had been redeemed in a singular and most perfect way in view of the Divine Maternity.

Before Christ, before His instructing the masses, you have the entity of a fully knowledgeable Mary knowing God saved her, before time. Unlike everyone else around her and in history, God is her saviour differently, pre-conception.

Moses, Enoch, and Elijah, not to mention all the other righteous folk in the OT, were saved by the foreseen merits of Christ long before the Incarnation. Mary did pronounce her canticle of praise before our Lord's passion and death. Meanwhile, Mary's soul was created in time, at the first instant of her conception. And it was in real time that God sanctified her soul with his redeeming and regenerating grace by the foreseen merits of His Son.

PAX

justinangel · Mar 26, 2015

Standing Up said:
Of course it is the right translation. Philo wasn't a believer. His poetry and Athena take precedence?!

Septuagint
Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, he shall watch against thy head, and thou shalt watch against his heel.

Hebrew parallel poetry (chiasmus) has nothing to do with ancient Greek mythology. And although Philo may not have been a religious person, he was still aware of the ancient Hebrew literary technique.

According to Origen's Hexapla, there were six translations of the OT in the 3rd century. Unfortunately only two have survived. Thus the modern version may in fact not totally agree with the original manuscript of the third century before Christ. Philo apparently preferred to read "aute" rather than "autos" in its primary context, accepting autos in a secondary context, or he may have read "aute" in one of the now non-extant translations of his time. We musn't assume that the text you are referring to actually agrees with the original manuscript.

PAX

Standing Up · Mar 27, 2015

justinangel said:
Hebrew parallel poetry (chiasmus) has nothing to do with ancient Greek mythology. And although Philo may not have been a religious person, he was still aware of the ancient Hebrew literary technique.

According to Origen's Hexapla, there were six translations of the OT in the 3rd century. Unfortunately only two have survived. Thus the modern version may in fact not totally agree with the original manuscript of the third century before Christ. Philo apparently preferred to read "aute" rather than "autos" in its primary context, accepting autos in a secondary context, or he may have read "aute" in one of the now non-extant translations of his time. We musn't assume that the text you are referring to actually agrees with the original manuscript.

PAX

Now you've forgotten what Philo said? That was the point. He knows it reads "he", but to massage his literary technique, not to mention Athena, he thinks it should be "she".

Again, Philo is a witness against your belief.

patricius79 · Jun 4, 2015

Alfred Persson said:
Occam's razor, oft cited by fictional Sherlock Holmes, is correct nonetheless: "the simplest explanation is most likely correct." This follows because the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions has fewer places where error can hide.

Sherlock Holmes would discount your hypothesis, it assumes "Mary knew she was sinless." Nothing in the context indicates she did. The simplest explanation for Mary's sin offering, is she had sin preventing atonement, at-one-ment with God.

I don't think it's very simple to say that the Mother of God was a sinner. As far as Occam's razor and the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, I would suppose that they both were--at least at times--following rationalism rather than the Word of God, which holds that Mary conceived Jesus Christ, and is the Immaculate Conception

justinangel · Jun 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
Keep digging for the truth.

Keep denying it.

bbbbbbb · Jun 11, 2015

patricius79 said:
I don't think it's very simple to say that the Mother of God was a sinner. As far as Occam's razor and the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, I would suppose that they both were--at least at times--following rationalism rather than the Word of God, which holds that Mary conceived Jesus Christ, and is the Immaculate Conception

Precisely where in the Word of God does it state that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

Rhamiel · Jun 11, 2015

in Genesis God says He will put enmity between the serpent and the Woman
if you are a slave to sin, you are not really opposing sin and evil, because you are ruled over by it

Jesus calls Mary "woman" several times, identifying her as the fulfillment of that prophecy

we also have the angel calling Mary "full of grace" or "highly favored" depending on your translation

concretecamper · Jun 11, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Precisely where in the Word of God does it state that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

Precisely where in the Word of God does it state that the Word of God contains all Truth needed for salvation?

patricius79 · Jun 11, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Precisely where in the Word of God does it state that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

The Bible teaches that both Scripture and the oral Word are the Word of God (2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 2:13, Acts 8:14, 2 Tim 3:10,14-17

The doctrine that Mary is the Immaculate Conception is stated implicitly in the Biblical statement that Mary conceived Jesus (Lk 1:31), who is God (Jn 20:28).

It is also implicit in the early Church fathers oral teaching (2 Tim 2:2) that Mary is the New Eve and the Ark of the Covenant (for example St. Justin and St. Irenaeus and Tertullian in the 100s). The fathers--such as Augustine--are also explicit that Mary is sinless.

Reflection on this oral word of God (Jn 15:22) deepened over time in the Church, which more and more understood that Mary was Immaculately Concieved.

It is also explicitly stated by the Vicar of Jesus Christ in the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus in 1854: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Albion · Jun 15, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Precisely where in the Word of God does it state that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

Nowhere--unless the angel saying that she had found favor with God ("full of grace") equals a declaration of her being sinless....and even then, there is no reason to think that this means she always was sinless.

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2015

patricius79 said:
The Bible teaches that both Scripture and the oral Word are the Word of God (2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 2:13, Acts 8:14, 2 Tim 3:10,14-17

The doctrine that Mary is the Immaculate Conception is stated implicitly in the Biblical statement that Mary conceived Jesus (Lk 1:31), who is God (Jn 20:28).

It is also implicit in the early Church fathers oral teaching (2 Tim 2:2) that Mary is the New Eve and the Ark of the Covenant (for example St. Justin and St. Irenaeus and Tertullian in the 100s). The fathers--such as Augustine--are also explicit that Mary is sinless.

Reflection on this oral word of God (Jn 15:22) deepened over time in the Church, which more and more understood that Mary was Immaculately Concieved.

It is also explicitly stated by the Vicar of Jesus Christ in the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus in 1854: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

So, the doctrine did not originate in scripture, but evolved within your denomination until your leader decided at the late date of 1854 to proclaim it as dogma. Thank you for the excellent summary of the evolution of this dogma.

patricius79 · Jun 16, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
So, the doctrine did not originate in scripture, but evolved within your denomination until your leader decided at the late date of 1854 to proclaim it as dogma. Thank you for the excellent summary of the evolution of this dogma.

Well, we should probably remember that the Bible never--from the book of Genesis to Exodus--teaches Sola Scriptura.

Rather it teaches to hold fast to the written and oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2)

This oral Word of God which gave us the N.T. Canon (not defined as dogma until the 1600s) teaches that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2015

patricius79 said:
Well, we should probably remember that the Bible never--from the book of Genesis to Exodus--teaches Sola Scriptura.

Rather it teaches to hold fast to the written and oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2)

This oral Word of God which gave us the N.T. Canon (not defined as dogma until the 1600s) teaches that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Once again, all of this is entirely contained within the limitations of your particular denomination and is not shared by the rest of Christendom. I do not disagree that this is how your denomination views these matters nor, do I think, it should concern you much that other denominations do not support your views.

You have your oral tradition and others have theirs. Each wishes to believe that theirs is the one, true, oral tradition.

patricius79 · Jun 16, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Once again, all of this is entirely contained within the limitations of your particular denomination and is not shared by the rest of Christendom. I do not disagree that this is how your denomination views these matters nor, do I think, it should concern you much that other denominations do not support your views.

You have your oral tradition and others have theirs. Each wishes to believe that theirs is the one, true, oral tradition.

How do you interpret and live out 2 Thes 2:15, which says to hold fast to the oral traditions and written traditions?

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2015

patricius79 said:
How do you interpret and live out 2 Thes 2:15, which says to hold fast to the oral traditions and written traditions?

I focus on that which is verifiably true, not some fables passed along. When I master the written traditions I will concern myself with any oral traditions. In the meantime I am still trying to pefect loving my neighbor as myself.

patricius79 · Jun 16, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
I focus on that which is verifiably true, not some fables passed along. When I master the written traditions I will concern myself with any oral traditions. In the meantime I am still trying to pefect loving my neighbor as myself.

Why master the written traditions before the oral traditions?

And why do you believe the oral tradition that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a fable?

Catherineanne · Jun 16, 2015

Alfred Persson said:
21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:
23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:
24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:
(Luk 2:21-24 DRA)

One of the turtledoves is a sin offering

`And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean. " -Lev 12:8 NKJ

If Mary were sinless, then a turtledove offering is vanity, hypocritical.

If immaculately conceived, that is "sinless," why mention it prayer to God:

46 And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
(Luk 1:46-47 NKJ)

The Lord was without sin, but he was baptised. In his own words, he did this in order to 'fulfill all righteousness'.

The turtledove offering is the same; to fulfill all righteousness.

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2015

patricius79 said:
Why master the written traditions before the oral traditions?

And why do you believe the oral tradition that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a fable?

First, I have certainty concerning what the written tradition actually encompasses. There is a large variety of beliefs that are included in various oral traditions. I did not state that I believe that the IC is a fable did I? I daresay there are many beliefs within other oral traditions that you would readily dismiss as fables.

patricius79 · Jun 16, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
First, I have certainty concerning what the written tradition actually encompasses. There is a large variety of beliefs that are included in various oral traditions. I did not state that I believe that the IC is a fable did I? I daresay there are many beliefs within other oral traditions that you would readily dismiss as fables.

Hi bbbbbbb

How do you have a certainty of what the written tradition encompasses?

Also, you are saying you are open to the possibility that the Mother of God is the Immaculate Conception?

Immaculate conception of Mary?

On and on

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Member of the Round Table

I stand with Candice.

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency